MINUTES

COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

APRIL 22, 1997 2:30 P.M.

PRESENT Chair Carsky, Legs: LaMotte,

Delfino, Latimer, Bronz

ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Cunningham, Ms.

Coggelshell, Ms. Thomas, Mr.

Yoegel, Mr. Hosey, Mr. Carsten,

Commr. Oliva, Commr.

Petrocelli, First Deputy Comm.

Butler, Mr. Burroughs, Mrs.

Keating

ITEMS DISCUSSED:

Chair Carsky called the meeting to order at 2:45 P.M. She explained that there was a mix-up with Commr. Oliva and that she will be right up. Leg. LaMotte stated that there was an article in Smithsonian Magazine that was environmentally friendly to golf courses and she would like the Planning Department to look into this most sensitive issue.

On motion of Leg. LaMotte, seconded by Leg. Delfino, the minutes of April 15 were approved 3-0. Leg. Latimer was out for the vote.

Chair Carsky reviewed the upcoming Committee schedule with the members. On Monday, April 28 at 3:30 P.M., the Committee will meet jointly with the Budget Committee to discuss the Jay Property. On Tuesday, April 29th, at 11:00 A.M. the Committee will sit in with the Legislation Committee to discuss the Birchwood Springs Swim Club. Yet to be confirmed, on Tuesday, May 6, at 2:30 P.M. the Committee will meet with Commr. DeSantis to discuss the Parks Survey.

Leg. LaMotte requested that Commr. DeSantis bring the results of the three public hearings with him. She would especially like a transcript of the Muscoot Public Hearing where those present stated that Conservation was not stressed enough. Leg. LaMotte also brought up the fact that parents brought up skateboarding and what facilities the children can use to do same. People do not appreciate the children skateboarding along local streets.

Chair Carsky stated that we will not be doing the final EIS today, but will try to address all the concerns that have not been met.

Both Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Coggelshell stated that they were not happy with the permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the retention basins. They did not feel this was adequate. They felt the retention basins should work as wetlands but wanted to know what our fall-back position was if this failed.

Commr. Oliva stated that it is not for us to say if they give up a permit or not. Commr. Oliva stated that both retention basins have been evaluated and work.

Ms. Cunningham stated that she still has concerns and wants to be sure that the wetlands are mitigated properly.

Commr. Oliva asked Ms. Cunningham what would be her recommendation and she replied to keep both suggestions open.

Commr. Oliva stated that this is a balancing act. The Airport uses Planning staff all the time and if retention sites A & B don’t work, we always have C.

Leg. LaMotte asked the Commr. if she received any input on the basins from the Planning Board and she stated that they all feel very strongly about Light General Aviation. We are between a rock and a hard place.

Chair Carsky asked Comm. Petrocelli if we do not pass this - what is the risk with the Light GA?

Commr. Petrocelli stated that the Master Plan was a well conceived balancing act. If we don’t go with this, Light GA will look elsewhere and U.S. Air could build a hangar. If you look at all the discussion we held back then, this is a General Aviation Airport. The Resolution that the Board passed in 1985 had wide support. If GA takes over, it will be abominable and Light GA will go elsewhere.

Leg. Latimer asked if we have all the environmental protections in place as we move forward and do we have the right policy for tree cutting and wetland mitigation?. Do we have everything here or do we need more time to satisfy everyone?

Leg. Latimer and Commr. Oliva worked on language to be inserted on Page 15. She will finalize same and report back to the Committee.

Trees: Ms. Cunningham was happy to see that trees will be replaced. She suggested that lower growing species be substituted but she felt that the language did not show that the County may replace in all instances. Both Commr. Oliva and Commr. Petrocelli stated that trees can not always be replaced if they pose a safety threat. There was a lengthy discussion on the trees, and what will and will not be replaced. The Commrs. will work on language and report back to the Committee.

Mr. Carsten of the Friend Meeting House feels that there is a significant visual impact on the Meeting House. He would rather see total trees removed than looking through tree trunks. He suggested that rather than topping the canopy, thought be given to replacement with shorter trees. Mr. Carsten stated that the main concern on the Friends is the northerly view. If they are in the prayer room, they can see the planes taxiing on the runway. They felt a fence is out of the question visually and would like lower species trees planted to block that view.

Mr. Carsten asked if the Friends could pick their own tree person, but Commr. Petrocelli stated that was something that had to go out for bid if the County is paying for it.

Mr. Carsten asked if any additional lighting would impact on the Meeting House and Commr. Oliva stated that originally the light poles were to be 24 feet high but will now be only 20 and that the apron lights will not be visible off site.

Mr. Carsten also asked if something could be done to reduce planes during the 11:00 - 12:00 A.M. Sunday time slot when they are at prayer. He brought up another issue that the Commr. stated he would discuss with him after the meeting.

Commr. Oliva brought up the letter from the Price’s and their request for a wall. Originally it was a 500 foot long by 10 foot high wall costing $20,000. Now it is over 800 feet long, up to l5 feet high in some cases at a cost of $163,000. Commr. Oliva stated that the wall is an issue and would like direction from the Board. She also stated that the thresholds are not being violated and, therefore replacement windows should not be an issue on this project. She needs some direction from the Board.

Ms. Thomas disagrees on the thresholds being violated and feels that the County should seriously look at this.

Chair Carsky said that she feels that no wall should be on County property because of the liability and asked if the Price’s would like one on their property and if they would maintain it and keep if free from graffiti. Ms. Thomas stated that she would ask her clients.

Ms. Thomas also stated that it is the County’s obligation to mitigate the noise and the berm is no help. Commr. Oliva stated that the berm is screening for the Fox property. It was never meant as a sound barrier.

The Committee will get back to Commr. Oliva by week’s end and with a recommendation on the Price’s request and will shoot to have a final findings statement in hand for review in early May. The Commr. expects to act on the final EIS at the meeting of May 19.

On motion of Leg. Latimer, seconded by Chair Carsky, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.